Giggs trial

Very unsurprising. Just like Greenwood & Mendy, shows you what money and a very expensive lawyer can do for you.
 
JagUTD said:
The sooner these trials are played out as far from the public eye as possible, the better for all involved.

The only time we as the public should know anything is when a guilty verdict is handed down.
Click to expand...

These cases inevitably ruin the reputation of the accused to the point their career and ability to earn a living has been permanently compromised. Names shouldn’t be discussed in public until the charges have played out to avoid mob who rarely understand the basic tenets of the criminal justice system.
 
Giggsy13 said:
The Jury failed to convict the first time and the Crown has withdrawn the case. How is it unresolved?
Click to expand...

I think he means that when a case is dropped it often has little bearing on the actual truth of the matter. I have been a juror where I was pretty damn sure the oiks committed the crime but there wasn't enough to convict them. There is some difference between what you think you know and what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
 
Giggsy13 said:
These cases inevitably ruin the reputation of the accused to the point their career and ability to earn a living has been permanently compromised. Names shouldn’t be discussed in public until the charges have played out to avoid mob who rarely understand the basic tenets of the criminal justice system.
Click to expand...

Giggs' reputation was already in the gutter?!
 
JagUTD said:
The sooner these trials are played out as far from the public eye as possible, the better for all involved.

The only time we as the public should know anything is when a guilty verdict is handed down.
Click to expand...

Agreed entirely.

We don't know the ins and outs of this case, but I can guarantee that the general public will act like he was guilty of it all.
 
Giggsy13 said:
The Jury failed to convict the first time and the Crown has withdrawn the case. How is it unresolved?
Click to expand...

The first jury couldn't reach a verdict one way or another, and a case being dropped by the CPS doesn't mean the person is innocent, cases get dropped for all sorts of reasons.
 
Giggsy13 said:
Defend their clients vigorously in Court? The gall of their barristers, how dare they do their job.
Click to expand...
It feels like you're maybe a little biased on this one. I don't think anyone is claiming Giggs is categorically guilty but it's definitely worth noting the regularity with which 'stars' get away with this sort of thing vs the general public. Whichever way you cut it, Giggs does not come out of this incident looking good. Nor does anyone that steadfastly refuses to admit the possibility of any wrongdoing on his part, imo.
 
quadrant said:
The first jury couldn't reach a verdict one way or another, and a case being dropped by the CPS doesn't mean the person is innocent, cases get dropped for all sorts of reasons.
Click to expand...
Your wasting your time, there's certain posters on here who seem to think footballer's can do no wrong.
 
quadrant said:
The first jury couldn't reach a verdict one way or another, and a case being dropped by the CPS doesn't mean the person is innocent, cases get dropped for all sorts of reasons.
Click to expand...
Also doesn't mean he is guilty.
 
One of the arguments the couple had was about loading the cutlery the correct way into the dishwasher. Did we ever find out which way Ryan likes them loaded?

I'm a cutlery facing down man personally. Never had any issues.
 
Champ said:
Also doesn't mean he is guilty.
Click to expand...


Nobody said he was. But it's more nuanced than just the guilty / innocent binary.
Whoever doesn't understand that should probably stay out of these threads.

The stupidity, whether actual or tactical is getting tiresome.
 
RaddyRed said:
One of the arguments the couple had was about loading the cutlery the correct way into the dishwasher. Did we ever find out which way Ryan likes them loaded?

I'm a cutlery facing down man personally. Never had any issues.
Click to expand...
If the cutlery is facing down less water will get to the dirty bits as they're "protected" somewhat by the casing of the cutlery holder

Unless you eat with your cutlery the other way round in which case this method is perfectly viable
 
RaddyRed said:
One of the arguments the couple had was about loading the cutlery the correct way into the dishwasher. Did we ever find out which way Ryan likes them loaded?

I'm a cutlery facing down man personally. Never had any issues.
Click to expand...
Heresy! Cutlery up is the only way to ensure it gets properly cleaned.
 
SuperiorXI said:
If the cutlery is facing down less water will get to the dirty bits as they're "protected" somewhat by the casing of the cutlery holder

Unless you eat with your cutlery the other way round in which case this method is perfectly viable
Click to expand...

Quicker to load and unload, and always clean. Can see why the subject would turn violent tbf
 
moses said:
Nobody said he was. But it's more nuanced than just the guilty / innocent binary.
Whoever doesn't understand that should probably stay out of these threads.

The stupidity, whether actual or tactical is getting tiresome.
Click to expand...
The assumption was that just because the case was dropped doesn't mean he is innocent, which then paints an image of him being guilty by proxy whether that's deliberate or not.
 
RaddyRed said:
One of the arguments the couple had was about loading the cutlery the correct way into the dishwasher. Did we ever find out which way Ryan likes them loaded?

I'm a cutlery facing down man personally. Never had any issues.
Click to expand...
Barbaric.
 
quadrant said:
Which is why I said it feels unresolved.
Click to expand...
It does, your right.

And I guess without knowing the full details of why it was dropped it potentially always will be.
But the case is closed as far as the law is concerned, and with no charges for Giggs he is in essence innocent man,
 
he's only been acquitted because kate didn't want to give further evidence because she's been 'worn down' and 'violated' by the process, right?

the legal process is fecked.
 
Last edited:
stepic said:
he's only been acquitted because kate didn't want to give evidence because she's been worn down and 'volated' by the process, right?

the legal process is fecked.
Click to expand...

Yeah pretty grim. This kind of thing always drags on, must be exhausting.
 
Giggsy13 said:
Defend their clients vigorously in Court? The gall of their barristers, how dare they do their job.
Click to expand...

You’re being a little biased and missing the obvious bigger point here on what I was referring too when it comes to “sports stars” in court with a ton of money at their disposal & who can afford to have the best of lawyers vs the general public who let’s be fair would very unlikely escape a jail sentence if they committed anything like what Greenwood/Mendy/Giggs had done.
 
Champ said:
The assumption was that just because the case was dropped doesn't mean he is innocent, which then paints an image of him being guilty by proxy whether that's deliberate or not.
Click to expand...

No, it's somewhere in the middle, that's the issue, and thus the use of 'unresolved' .
 
Dropped case doesnt mean he cant get charged again if new evidence come up?
 
RaddyRed said:
Quicker to load and unload, and always clean. Can see why the subject would turn violent tbf
Click to expand...
To the naked eye maybe, but at a microscopic bacterial level you're putting the equivalent of a pigs cock (after rolling round in shit all day) in your mouth the next time you eat with that cutlery
 
moses said:
No, it's somewhere in the middle, that's the issue, and thus the use of 'unresolved' .
Click to expand...
And I've agreed to that reasoning, however does Giggs have any charges on him right now? Has he commited a crime by the letter of the law?
Answer those in layman's terms and you have your resolve.
Does that resolve the situation, possibly not but it does resolve the case.

The state of innocent and guilty is binary, the idea of justice isn't binary.
 
SuperiorXI said:
To the naked eye maybe, but at a microscopic bacterial level you're putting the equivalent of a pigs cock (after rolling round in shit all day) in your mouth the next time you eat with that cutlery
Click to expand...
The Giggs thread has taken an unexpected turn here...!
 
SuperiorXI said:
To the naked eye maybe, but at a microscopic bacterial level you're putting the equivalent of a pigs cock (after rolling round in shit all day) in your mouth the next time you eat with that cutlery
Click to expand...

Oooft. That could be a game changer
 
Champ said:
It does, your right.

And I guess without knowing the full details of why it was dropped it potentially always will be.
But the case is closed as far as the law is concerned, and with no charges for Giggs he is in essence innocent man,
Click to expand...

Well no, there's a distinction between Not Guilty and Innocent, that's the problem. Not Guilty can mean you're completely innocent, but it can also mean all sorts of other things, like being charged with the wrong offence, a lack of evidence, a split jury, and other technical issues. The process he's gone through has not proven his innocence.
 
Innocent until you or your cheap lawyers shit the bed should be the name of the game. The top ultra expensive lawyers though can twist things more than a tornado.
 
RedDevilRoshi said:
Very unsurprising. Just like Greenwood & Mendy, shows you what money and a very expensive lawyer can do for you.
Click to expand...

This is a different situation. They gave evidence the first time round but the mental toll meant they did not want to go through that a second time in the retrial.

With both Greenwood and Mendy, the evidence/witnesses were either lying or unwilling to cooperate from the start.
 
Lads, I'm sure we can all agree that @Giggsy13 is coming at this in a completely unbiased and objective way.
 
quadrant said:
Well no, there's a distinction between Not Guilty and Innocent, that's the problem. Not Guilty can mean you're completely innocent, but it can also mean all sorts of other things, like being charged with the wrong offence, a lack of evidence, a split jury, and other technical issues. The process he's gone through has not proven his innocence.
Click to expand...
Judge Hilary Manley directed that he was not guilty on all three counts,

By the letter of the law the man is innocent of all charges.
There's no in-between there, from the charges held against Giggs, he is innocent of all charges.

Now how that came about is the muddy waters, but that does not diminish the fact that Giggs is in society as an innocent man.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
I don't think so. I think he'll be well advised to stay away for a bit, let another controversy with someone else come out and then dip his toe back in.
Click to expand...
Yes agreed, they'll get him in as an expert next time a Mendy or Greenwood shows up.
 
SuperiorXI said:
To the naked eye maybe, but at a microscopic bacterial level you're putting the equivalent of a pigs cock (after rolling round in shit all day) in your mouth the next time you eat with that cutlery
Click to expand...
Interesting.

I used to be a cutlery up guy but after reading your post will have to make the switch to cutlery down!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.